NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Court of Appeals
FIFING OTHER THAN MOTION Electronically Filed:
May 13, 2016 14:14
By: ELIZABETH BONHAM 0093733
Confirmation Nbr. 751540
CHRISTINA CRUZ, ET AL. CA 15 103714
vs.
Judge:
ENGLISH NANNY & GOVERNESS SCHOOL INC., ET
AL.
Pages Filed: 20
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14/FILING OTHER THAN MOTION /CA 15 103714/Confirmation Nbr. 751540/CLEJK
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
CHRISTINA CRUZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs-App ellants,
v.
ENGLISH NANNY AND
GOVERNESS SCHOOL, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. CA-15-103714
)
)
)
)
)
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF OHIO FOUNDATION
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
Jonathan Peters (0086729)
Freda J. Levenson (0045916)
American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation
4506 Chester Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44103
Phone: 216-472-2220
Fax: 216-472-2210
COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE
Peter Pattakos, Esq.
Subodh Chandra, Esq.
The Chandra Law Firm
1265 West 6th Street, Suite 400
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: 216-578-1700
Fax: 216-578-1800
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
William D. Edwards, Esq.
Corey Thrush, Esq.
Ulmer & Berne
1660 West 2nd Street, Suite 1100
Cleveland Ohio 44113
Phone: 216-583-7150
Fax: 216-583-7151
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
ll
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Contents i
Table of Authorities ii
Statement of Interest of Amicus Curiae 1
Statement of the Issues Presented 1
Background 2
Argument 5
A. Extrajudicial attorney speech has value to the legal system.
B. Sanctions against an attorney under R.C. 2323.51 are limited
to cases where the trial court has made an explicit finding of
attorney conduct that “obviously serves merely to harass or
maliciously injure” the opposing party.
Conclusion 13
Certificate of Service 15
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Barbato v. Mercy Med. Ctr., Stark 5th Dist. No.
2005 CA 00044, 2005-Ohio-5219. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Drywall v. Axe, Union 3rd Dist. No. 14-09-31,
2010-Ohio-986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
First Fed. Bank of Ohio v. Angelini, Crawford 3rd Dist. No.
3-11-16, 2012-Ohio-2136. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S.
765 (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Gentile v. State Bar, 384 U.S. 333 (1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 265 F. Supp. 2d 321
(S.D.N.Y. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976). . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Newman v. Weinman, 8th Dist. No. 97857, 2012-Ohio-3464 . . . . . . . . 10
Norris v. Philander Chase Co., Knox 5th Dist. No. 10-CA-04,
2010- Ohio-5297 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980). . . . . . . 8, 9
Sigmon v. Sw. Gen. Health Ctr., Cuyahoga 8th Dist. No.
88276, 2007-Ohio-2117. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
State v. Schmit, 273 Minn. 78 (1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
State ex rel. Striker v. Cline, 130 Ohio St.3d 214,
2011- Ohio-5350, 957 N.E.2d 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
ii
Miscellaneous
Beth A. Wilkinson and Steven H. Schulman, When Talk
is Not Cheap: Communications with the Media, the
Government and Other Parties in High Profile White
Collar Criminal Cases, 39 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 203 (2002). . . . . . . . . 6
Eliot E. Slotnick and Jennifer Segal, Television News
and the Supreme Court: All the News That’s Fit to
Air 1 (1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Erwin Chemerinsky, Silence is Not Golden: Protecting
Lawyer Speech Under the First Amendment, 47 Emory
L.J. 859 (1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
James F. Haggerty, In the Court of Public Opinion:
Winning Your Case with Public Relations (2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Lonnie T. Brown, Jr., “May It Please the Camera,
... I mean Court ” - An Intrajudicial Solution to an
Extrajudicial Problem, 39 Ga. L. Rev. 83 (2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Margaret Tarkington, A First Amendment Theory for
Protecting Attorney Speech, 45 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 27 (2011). . . . . . . 6
Margaret Tarkington, Lost in the Compromise: Free
Speech, Criminal Justice, and Attorney Pretrial Publicity,
66 Fla. L. Rev. 1873 (2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Mark Geragos, The Thirteenth Juror: Media Coverage
of Supersized Trials, 39 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1167 (2006). . . . . . . . . . 7
Meghan Levine, The Competing Roles of an Attorney
in a High-Profile Case: Trying a Case Inside and Outside
of the Courtroom, 28 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 683 (2015). . . . . . . . . . 7
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
iii
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
Amicus Curiae, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation
(“ACLU”), is the Ohio affiliate of the national American Civil Liberties Union, one of
the oldest and largest organizations in the country dedicated to the preservation of the Bill
of Rights and the defense of the freedoms set forth therein. With some 500,000 members
in all 50 states, and nearly 30,000 members and supporters in Ohio, the ACLU appears
routinely in state and federal courts, both as amicus and as direct counsel, without bias or
political partisanship, to protect the freedoms of speech and press. This case involves the
interpretation of an Ohio statute in a manner that could restrict the ability of lawyers to
communicate with the press about non-confidential information in pending cases—and at
the same time restrict the public’s ability to receive information about court proceedings.
The resolution of this case, therefore, is a matter of substantial interest to the ACLU and
to its members and supporters.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED
The issues presented for review relate to the trial court’s imposition of sanctions on
counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants for “frivolous conduct” under an Ohio statute penalizing
attorney conduct that “obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another
party to a civil action ... or is for another improper purpose.” The conduct consisted of
providing the press with non-confidential information about a pending trial. This brief
addresses the free-speech implications of the trial court’s interpretation of the statute in a
manner that could restrict the ability of lawyers to communicate with the press about non-
confidential information in pending cases and also restrict the public’s ability to receive
information about court proceedings.
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
1
BACKGROUND
Peter Pattakos, an attorney at the Chandra Law Firm in Cleveland, represented
Plaintiffs-Appellants, two former employees of a nanny training school, in a wrongful
termination lawsuit against the school. The school had terminated the employees after
they reported child abuse committed by a client of the school. During the representation,
Mr. Pattakos communicated with the editor of Scene Magazine about his clients’ claims
and provided the magazine with public court records related to the lawsuit, including the
complaint, the briefs opposing a summary judgment motion, and the affidavits supporting
the motion. None of the records was confidential or under seal, and neither the parties nor
their counsel was bound by a gag order. Mr. Pattakos encouraged Scene’s editor to report
on the case when it was set for trial.
Ultimately, the magazine published a news story that mostly reflected the former
employees’ version of events, and upon learning of the story, the trial court questioned
the jurors individually about it. Two said they had seen the story but had read only the
headline and nothing more. They said they would not be influenced by it as jurors. Soon
thereafter, the court declared a mistrial for unrelated reasons, and a new jury was selected
and the trial proceeded, with verdicts for the former employees and awards of both
compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants-Appellees then moved, under R.C.
2323.51, for sanctions against Mr. Pattakos, citing his “involvement in the publication of
an inflammatory article related to this case.”
R.C. 2323.51 covers “the taking of any ... action in connection with a civil
action” and states:
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
2
... any party affected by frivolous conduct may file a
motion for award of court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees,
and other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with
a civil action ... The court may assess and make an award
to any party to the civil action ... who was adversely
affected by the frivolous conduct.
Under R.C. 2323.51(A)(1)(a), “Frivolous conduct” is defined to include “[that
which] obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another party to a civil
action . or is for another improper purpose, including, but not limited to, causing
unnecessary delay or a heedless increase in the cost of litigation.”
The trial court found that Mr. Pattakos’s “involvement in publication of the Scene
article was a malicious attempt to injure and was intended to harass each of the
defendants.” The court said Mr. Pattakos “had a purpose to defame defendants” when he
encouraged the editor to report on the case and notified him that the case was set for trial.
Acknowledging that Mr. Pattakos “did not write the article,” the court said nonetheless
that “he knew . the thrust of any reporting was likely to be to discredit the defendants
and that, if believed by members of the public, the reporting would injure them.”
Therefore, the court held, “[u]rging Scene to begin coverage constituted initiating
harassment. ”
The court went on to say that R.C. 2323.51 required it to consider whether
Pattakos’s actions were taken “merely” to harass or maliciously injure. Noting that a
“lawsuit may have multiple purposes,” the court said that “the purpose of litigation is the
orderly and fair resolution of disputes”—and that the word “merely” required the court to
evaluate whether the actions at issue “advance[d] the interests of a fair and orderly trial or
resolution of the dispute.” Mr. Pattakos argued that he had a “valid public purpose” in
encouraging the editor to write about the case—to generate coverage underscoring the
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
3
need to report child abuse—but the court did not agree.
Specifically, the court said it did not “doubt that the Scene article served that
purpose and that Mr. Pattakos had that purpose,” but it concluded that “public education
about reporting child abuse was a quite secondary purpose of Mr. Pattakos and that news
coverage of the trial was not necessary to producing a fair and orderly resolution of the
court case.” For those reasons, the court found that Mr. Pattakos’s “sole purpose” in
encouraging Scene to cover the case “was to harass or maliciously injury [sic] the
defendants outside of the litigation process” and that “soliciting news ... coverage once
trial began served no purpose of achieving an orderly or fair adjudicative process or
settlement.”
Moreover, the court found that Mr. Pattakos, as an officer of the court, “had a
primary obligation ... to avoid taking actions which raised a substantial risk of
prejudicing a jury or requiring the [c]ourt to take special actions to prevent prejudice
because of matters occurring outside of the court room.” The court said that encouraging
Scene to report on the case “raised [such] a substantial likelihood.” The court also noted
that counsel for Defendants-Appellees brought the story to its attention and that “Mr.
Pattakos ... did not ... give the [c]ourt advance notice that he had engaged in
conversations with Scene that might produce an article which could prejudice the jury.”
For those reasons, the court ruled that Mr. Pattakos’s actions constituted “frivolous
conduct” under R.C. 2323.51.
It is worth mentioning that the court dismissed the relevance of Rule 3.6 of the
Code of Professional Conduct, which governs the making of extrajudicial statements by
lawyers participating in litigation. The Rule expressly permits lawyers to share or state
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
4
any information “contained in a public record” or related to “the scheduling or result of
any step in litigation.” Mr. Pattakos argued that all of the information he provided to
Scene appeared in a public record or involved scheduling. The court said that this “may
be correct,” and “passe[d] no judgment on whether Mr. Pattakos ... violated Rule 3.6.”
Nevertheless, the court held that it was possible on the same facts to be protected by Rule
3.6 and to be in violation of R.C. 2323.51.
ARGUMENT
Against that background, the purpose of this amicus brief is to address the free-
speech implications of the trial court’s interpretation of R.C. 2323.51 in a manner that
could restrict the ability of lawyers to communicate with the press about non-confidential
information in pending cases—as well as restrict the public’s ability to receive
information about court proceedings. The brief begins by discussing, as a general matter,
the value of extrajudicial attorney speech to the functioning of the legal system. Then, the
brief analyzes R.C. 2323.51 and urges this court to make clear that imposition of the
statute’s sanctions must be limited to cases in which the trial court has made an explicit
finding of attorney conduct that “obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure”
the opposing party. R.C. 2323.51(A)(1)(a).
A. Extrajudicial attorney speech has value to the legal system.
It must be pointed out, as a preliminary matter, that it is common for an attorney
to advocate regarding an ongoing case in the court of public opinion. See James F.
Haggerty, In the Court of Public Opinion: Winning Your Case with Public Relations,
xxiii (2003) (nearly 50 percent of top-200 U.S. corporate law departments regularly
engage in public relations in connection with litigation, and another 22.9 percent do so
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
5
“often” or “always”). Courts have recognized such advocacy to be a necessary and
valuable component of a lawyer’s representation of a client—even to the point of
specifically compensating for such activity in the calculation of fee awards. See In re
Grand Jury Subpoenas, 265 F. Supp. 2d 321, 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (observing that “many
courts have compensated lawyers, in making fee awards..., for public relations efforts in
recognition of the importance of such work in the clients’ interests”). Today’s lawyers are
emphatically expected—by the press, the public, and their clients—to communicate with
the news media. See Erwin Chemerinsky, Silence is Not Golden: Protecting Lawyer
Speech Under the First Amendment, 47 Emory L.J. 859, 860 (1998) (“As the media ...
increasingly follow high profile cases, there is ever greater pressure on lawyers to talk
with the press”); Beth A. Wilkinson and Steven H. Schulman, When Talk is Not Cheap:
Communications with the Media, the Government and Other Parties in High Profile
White Collar Criminal Cases, 39 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 203 (2002) (“Some clients view
media relations as an essential element of . zealous” representation).
Traditionally, attorneys have been seen as members of a self-regulating profession
that restricts their speech in certain ways—e.g., via rules of professional conduct—with
attorneys accepting such restrictions as conditions of their bar admissions. See Margaret
Tarkington, A First Amendment Theory for Protecting Attorney Speech, 45 U.C. Davis
L. Rev. 27, 30-31 (2011). However, that does not mean attorneys relinquish their First
Amendment rights upon entering the profession. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that
attorneys do have free-speech rights, even in pending cases. See Gentile v. State Bar of
Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1054, 111 S. Ct. 2720, 2734, 115 L. Ed. 2d 888 (1991).
With the emergence of new communication technologies and the modern mass-
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
6
media environment, not to mention the public’s appetite for legal conflicts and its
democratic interest in the proper functioning of the courts, it is increasingly unrealistic to
expect that legal advocacy would be confined entirely to the courtroom. See Meghan
Levine, The Competing Roles of an Attorney in a High-Profile Case: Trying a Case
Inside and Outside of the Courtroom, 28 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 683, 690 (2015); Mark
Geragos, The Thirteenth Juror: Media Coverage of Supersized Trials, 39 Loy. L.A. L.
Rev. 1167, 1171 (2006) (discussing how the advent of outlets like Court TV and
competition among cable television stations has resulted in saturation coverage of all
manner of legal issues).
Moreover, to the extent that attorneys make accurate, pertinent, and responsible
public comments regarding their pending cases, those comments can help to ensure the
perception and reality of fair legal proceedings. See Lonnie T. Brown, Jr., “May It Please
the Camera, ... I mean Court” - An Intrajudicial Solution to an Extrajudicial Problem,
39 Ga. L. Rev. 83, 126 (2004). Those comments can also compensate for any errors or
shortcomings in news coverage of the proceedings.
Attorneys’ extrajudicial speech thus plays a key role in the proper functioning of
the legal system. See Margaret Tarkington, Lost in the Compromise: Free Speech,
Criminal Justice, and Attorney Pretrial Publicity, 66 Fla. L. Rev. 1873, 1888 (2014).
This idea is grounded not only in First Amendment theories and democratic philosophy
but also in the reality that in the U.S. system the press is the main link between the courts
and the public, and attorneys are the main link between the courts and the press. See Eliot
E. Slotnick and Jennifer Segal, Television News and the Supreme Court: All the News
That’s Fit to Air 1 (1998). It is critical for the public to be able to receive information
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
7
about trials and other legal proceedings, because their attention to them—and
understanding of them—has been said “to enhance the integrity and quality of what takes
place.” Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 578, 100 S. Ct. 2814,
2828, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980).
Historically, in England and the United States, attending court proceedings was a
common way of "passing the time." See J. Wigmore, Evidence Section 1834, at 6 (J.
Chadbourn rev.1976). Today, court attendance is no longer widespread, and the news
media supply “the representations or reality of the ... drama once available only in the
courtroom.” Richmond Newspapers, supra, at 572. Media reports can “afford[] citizens a
form of legal education and hopefully promote[] confidence in the fair administration” of
legal claims. Richmond Newspapers, supra, at 572, quoting State v. Schmit, 273 Minn.
78, 87-88 (1966). In other words, instead of receiving information about court
proceedings through “firsthand observation or by word of mouth from those who
attended, people now acquire it chiefly through the ... media,” validating “the media
claim of functioning as surrogates for the public.” Richmond Newspapers, supra, at 573.
Thus, media reports and their sources, including attorneys, can "contribute to public
understanding of the rule of law and to comprehension of the functioning of the entire”
legal system. Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 587, 96 S. Ct. 2791, 2816, 49
L. Ed. 2d 683 (1976) (Brennan, J., concurring).
These principles stem from the Bill of Rights, enacted “against the backdrop of
the long history of trials being . open” and the general idea that public inclusion in legal
proceedings was “an important aspect of the process itself.” Richmond Newspapers,
supra, at 575. The First Amendment protects the right to attend trials in order to give
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
8
meaning to the freedoms of speech and press. Accordingly, the First Amendment goes
“beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit
government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public
may draw." First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783, 98 S. Ct. 1407,
1419, 55 L. Ed. 2d 707 (1978). Free speech, then, carries with it the “freedom to listen.”
Richmond Newspapers, supra, at 576. And, thus, free speech carries with it the right to
“receive information and ideas.” Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762, 92 S. Ct.
2576, 2581, 33 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1972).
Here, that means the constitutional guarantees of speech and press contemplate
the importance of the public’s meaningful inclusion in court proceedings and the right to
receive information about those proceedings, generally with the effect of enhancing the
integrity and quality of the adjudication process—all in a modern media environment in
which journalists and their sources, including attorneys, typically supply the information
as surrogates of the public. These are important principles and realities because the “First
Amendment does not speak equivocally ... [and] must be taken as a command of the
broadest scope that explicit language, read in the context of a liberty-loving society, will
allow." (Footnote omitted.) Bridges v. State of Cal., 314 U.S. 252, 263, 62 S. Ct. 190,
194, 86 L. Ed. 192 (1941). In such a society, it is important, generally, for lawyers to
communicate with the news media about non-confidential information in their cases and
for the public to receive information about legal proceedings.
While some restrictions on attorney speech are necessary to preserve the
adjudication process and the system in which attorneys work, generally attorneys enjoy
the First Amendment right to speak truthfully and extrajudicially about their pending
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
9
cases as long as their speech does not create a substantial likelihood of materially
prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in which they are involved.
B. Sanctions against an attorney under R.C. 2323.51 are limited to cases in which the trial
court has made an explicit finding of attorney conduct that “obviously serves merely to
harass or maliciously injure” the opposing party.
As discussed above, Defendants-Appellees moved under R.C. 2323.51 for
sanctions against Mr. Pattakos, because of his “involvement in the publication of an
inflammatory article related to this case.” R.C. 2323.51 covers “the taking of any ...
action in connection with a civil action” and states:
... any party affected by frivolous conduct may file a
motion for award of court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees,
and other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with
a civil action ... The court may assess and make an award
to any party to the civil action . who was adversely
affected by the frivolous conduct.
Under R.C. 2323.51(A)(1)(a), “Frivolous conduct” is defined, as applied in this
case, to include “[that which] obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure
another party to a civil action.” After a hearing, the trial court found that Mr. Pattakos’s
“involvement in publication of the Scene article was a malicious attempt to injure and
was intended to harass each of the defendants.” The statute contains no language related
to an attorney’s communication with the press, and we are not aware of any other case in
which a court has imposed sanctions under the statute for communicating with the press.
Instead, the statute has been invoked to sanction attorneys and parties solely for their
dilatory or frivolous litigation practices. The “frivolous conduct” referenced in the statute
has been construed to include the following types of litigation practices:
1. Filing claims that are unwarranted or precluded by law. See, e.g., Newman v.
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
10
Weinman, 2012-Ohio-3464, 985 N.E.2d 161 (8th Dist.) (plaintiffs claims precluded by
law, and “cursory review, prior to the filing of the complaint, would have uncovered the
current state of case law”).
2. Pursuing claims lacking evidentiary support. See, e.g., Norris v. Philander
Chase Co., Knox 5th Dist. No. 10-CA-04, 2010-Ohio-5297 (at the time of filing
complaint, plaintiff lacked evidence to prove claim’s elements).
3. Failing to dismiss claims after learning they lacked merit. See, e.g., Sigmon v.
Sw. Gen. Health Ctr., Cuyahoga 8th Dist. No. 88276, 2007-Ohio-2117 (baseless punitive
damages claim appeared in re-filed complaint).
4. Perpetuating an action to cause delay and expense for the opposing party. See,
e.g., Drywall v. Axe, Union 3rd Dist. No. 14-09-31, 2010-Ohio-986 (counsel “engaged in
a strategy of deliberate delay” by failing to respond to correspondence to set depositions
and conduct discovery).
5. Repeatedly attempting to remove judges from a case due to dissatisfaction with
their decisions. See, e.g., First Fed. Bank of Ohio v. Angelini, Crawford 3rd Dist. No. 3
11-16, 2012-Ohio-2136 (appellant “engaged in a tactic of seeking the removal of every
judge in this case”).
6. Failing to dismiss a defendant after learning the defendant was not implicated
in the case. See, e.g., Barbato v. Mercy Med. Ctr., Stark 5th Dist. No. 2005 CA 00044,
2005-Ohio-5219 (attorney refused to dismiss doctor-defendant after learning that doctor
was not responsible for patient-plaintiff’s complications).
7. Repeatedly relitigating issues after raising them unsuccessfully. See, e.g., State
ex rel. Striker v. Cline, 130 Ohio St.3d 214, 2011-Ohio-5350, 957 N.E.2d 19 (plaintiff
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
11
filed writ of mandamus to compel release of records, and in course of dispute plaintiff
“filed no less than eight motions raising the same issue” after raising it unsuccessfully).
As shown, the statute has been invoked to sanction attorneys and parties for their
litigation practices and never for communicating extrajudicially with the press about non-
confidential information in a pending case. In this case, the trial court found that when
Mr. Pattakos shared public records with the media and communicated with the media—
actions that did not violate any ethical or court rules—he had acted frivolously and had
maliciously harmed his opponent. In so holding, the trial court opined that Mr. Pattakos
should have waited until the trial had ended to communicate with the media, even though
the court had not issued a gag order, and that Mr. Pattakos should have taken steps to
ensure that his communication with the media did not influence the jury.
Although a court has discretion to impose sanctions for frivolous conduct, the trial
court’s novel use of R.C. 2323.51 creates a troubling new precedent. If the holding below
is upheld, we urge this court at least to articulate the proper standard for imposing the
type of sanction issued by the trial court. Specifically, we urge that no such sanction
should be imposed unless a trial court makes an explicit finding of intentional harassment
or malicious injury of the opposing party—and that absent such a finding, R.C. 2323.51
should not apply. If the statute were to be applied more broadly, it would interfere with
attorneys’ communication about legal proceedings that, by definition, are matters of
public concern and generally protected by the First Amendment.
Under R.C. 2323.51(A)(1)(a), “Frivolous conduct” is defined, as applied in this
case, to include conduct that “obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure
another party to a civil action.” Employing dictionary definitions, for conduct to serve
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
12
“obviously” and “merely to harass or maliciously injure” means that the conduct has no
aim other than subjecting a person to unwanted and persistent troubling behavior or
injury, for such injury to be motivated by an intention and desire to cause harm, and for
all of the above to be easy to recognize. (See, e.g., Merriam-Webster, which defines the
word “obviously” as “in a way that is easy to see, understand, or recognize”; the word
“merely” as “being nothing more than”; the word “harassment” as the act of subjecting a
person “persistently and wrongfully to ... troubling behavior”; and the word “malicious”
as “having or showing a desire to cause harm to another person.”)
Here, the trial court did find that Mr. Pattakos’s “sole purpose” in encouraging
Scene to cover the case “was to harass or maliciously injury [sic] the defendants outside
of the litigation process” and that “soliciting news . coverage once trial began served no
purpose of achieving an orderly or fair adjudicative process or settlement.” If this highly
unusual holding should be affirmed, we implore this court to state clearly that such
sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 are limited to cases in which the trial court has made an
explicit finding of conduct that “obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure”
the opposing party.
CONCLUSION
With the emergence of new communication technologies and the modern mass
media, along with the public’s appetite for legal conflicts, it is increasingly unrealistic for
court proceedings to be confined entirely to the courtroom. Advocating in the court of
public opinion is not only common but also critical to the public’s receipt of information
about trials and other legal proceedings, all to the end of “enhanc[ing] the integrity and
quality of what takes place” in the proceedings. Some restrictions on attorney speech are
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
13
necessary to preserve the adjudication process, but generally attorneys enjoy the right to
speak truthfully and extrajudicially about their pending cases as long as their speech does
not create a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in
which they are involved.
In this case, the trial court’s novel use of R.C. 2323.51 creates a troubling new
precedent that could restrict the ability of lawyers to communicate with the press about
non-confidential information in pending cases—and at the same time restrict the public’s
ability to receive information about court proceedings. We urge this court to articulate
clearly the proper standard for imposing the type of sanction issued by the trial court.
Specifically, we argue that no such sanction should be imposed unless the trial court
makes an explicit finding of conduct that “obviously serves merely to harass or
maliciously injure” the opposing party —and that absent such a finding, R.C. 2323.51
should not apply.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jonathan Peters
Jonathan Peters (0086729)
Freda J. Levenson (0045916)
American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation
4506 Chester Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44103
Phone: 216-472-2220
Fax: 216-472-2210
COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing was filed and served
pursuant to the court’s electronic filing system on May 13, 2016 upon the following
counsel of record for Appellants and Appellees:
Peter Pattakos, Esq.
Subodh Chandra, Esq.
The Chandra Law Firm
1265 West 6th Street, Suite 400
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: 216-578-1700
Fax: 216-578-1800
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
William D. Edwards, Esq.
Corey Thrush, Esq.
Ulmer & Berne
1660 West 2nd Street, Suite 1100
Cleveland Ohio 44113
Phone: 216-583-7150
Fax: 216-583-7151
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
/s/ Jonathan Peters
COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE
Electronically Filed 05/13/2016 14:14 / FILING OTHER THAN MOTION / CA 15 103714 / Confirmation Nbr. 751540 / CLEJK
15
Top Related